From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Clements Subject: Re: raid5 write performance Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:54:33 -0500 Message-ID: <4380D479.2030203@steeleye.com> References: <200511190440.jAJ4efw15919@www.watkins-home.com> <437EB0A6.8040807@h3c.com> <17278.48635.585763.580503@cse.unsw.edu.au> <17279.33422.273880.463498@fisica.ufpr.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <17279.33422.273880.463498@fisica.ufpr.br> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Carlos Carvalho Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Carlos Carvalho wrote: > I think the demand for any solution to the unclean array is indeed low > because of the small probability of a double failure. Those that want > more reliability can use a spare drive that resyncs automatically or > raid6 (or both). A spare disk would help, but note that raid6 does not decrease the probability of the silent corruption problem. Losing one disk in a raid6 still means that you are degraded (i.e., you rely on parity to recalculate data, so an incomplete stripe write means corruption). -- Paul